This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=96452
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility case defendants
don’t want to answer now
Lawyer for Obama, Congress says
representation decision unmade
Posted: April 28, 2009
8:49 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Government lawyers defending President Obama and Congress in a lawsuit alleging that he’s ineligible to occupy the Oval Office and that members of the House and Senate violated the constitutional rights of citizens by refusing to investigate want still more time to respond to the accusations.
It was filed in January by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 360,000 others and sign up now!
Even though extensions had been granted to an initial round of requests to delay the proceedings, the government now says it needs even more time to prepare a response to a question that could be answered with a five-minute telephone call from the president to Hawaiian officials asking that his birth documentation be made public.
Instead, a request submitted by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S. attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, explains that the Department of Justice, operating under Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, still is working on a decision on representation for the defendants.
(Story continues below)
“The failure to file an answer, move, or to otherwise respond before the expiration of the time specified is not the result of any neglect on any of the Defendants’ parts,” the court filing submitted yesterday said.
“Representation decisions are made by a specialized group of individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. In order to provide a fair opportunity for the Department to review this matter and to complete the representation determinations, Defendants respectfully request an extension of twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in which to answer, move, or otherwise respond,” the court filing said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.
Apuzzo, on his website, says the issue “is of utmost national importance.”
“Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer,” he said.
“This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable,” he said.
He told WND that since the attorneys for the government earlier were granted extensions for Obama and Congress to respond, there should be no further delay, and the statements should be required May 5 as planned.
In a comments section on his website, a contributor told Apuzzo, “It’s part of their stonewalling effort. They will do everything they can to stop or otherwise slow the path to justice down to snail’s pace.”
A similar situation developed in a California case raising a challenge to Obama’s eligibility that was filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes. The complaint was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation in early November, but it didn’t get court action until March, months after the actual election that it challenged.
That case now is on appeal.
The case being handled by Apuzzo was launched in New Jersey and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.
That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
It provides, the lawsuit said, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”
“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explains.
“Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” the lawsuit said.
The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,” the lawsuit said.
In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:
“The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman’s objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, ‘Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'” he wrote.
Several of the various disputes around the nation have been brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on emergency motions because of the gravity of the contentions, but none yet has been given an actual hearing.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.
While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations “garbage,” the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
- New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
- Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
- Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
- Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
- Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
- Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
- Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
- In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
- Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
- In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
- In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
- California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
- In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
- In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
- In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
- In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
- In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
var addthis_pub=”wndcom”;var addthis_brand = “WorldNetDaily”;var addthis_header_color = “#ffffff”;var addthis_header_background = “#000000”;var addthis_options = ’email, favorites, twitter, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more’;